With mayoral spokesperson Jason Teramoto under fire amid allegations of attempted election interference, some members of the Stockton City Council want to reconsider his appointment.
But his position is cemented in the City Charter, so the council has no authority to remove him, Interim City Attorney Donald Larkin says.
In a one-page staff report for the Aug. 18 City Council meeting, Vice Mayor Jason Lee and Councilmember Mario Enríquez requested a discussion to evaluate a resolution, passed unanimously in December, that put Teramoto in his $106,000-a-year job.
Teramoto was selected to fill the vacant position of public information officer for Mayor Christina Fugazi. The city charter allows Stockton’s mayor to appoint employees to that office with the “advice and consent” of the council. It further states that appointees serve at the pleasure of the mayor.
Larkin noted, however, that council consent is a condition of the PIO’s initial appointment — not something councilmembers can later withdraw to remove an employee.
Calls for an investigation
Lee and Enríquez sought to revisit Teramoto’s appointment after allegations lodged against him by City Clerk Katherine Roland.
In a July 1 email obtained by Stocktonia, then-City Attorney Marci Arredondo told councilmembers that Roland had accused Teramoto of election interference and requested an investigation.
Lee’s attorney separately requested an independent investigation into Teramoto’s actions. A 12-page state bar complaint Lee filed against Arredondo and entered into the council record on Aug. 18 says Roland documented that Teramoto had approached her in April about District 1 City Council candidate Tamica Small’s ballot designation after the candidate challenge period had closed.
According to the complaint, Roland alleged that Teramoto continued pressing the matter after she told him she was required to administer the election impartially. The complaint also alleges that Roland documented an April 23 interaction in which she says Teramoto pressured her to help the mayor “get some teeth” and instructed her to “get creative.”
Teramoto has previously denied all of the allegations, telling Stocktonia they have “zero merit.”
During the Aug. 18 meeting, David Sengthay, a community advocate and president of Stockton Democrats Together, urged the city to publicly clarify whether the investigation requested by Roland had been opened. The city has not disclosed that information.
Enríquez then asked Larkin whether any investigation was underway, and Larkin replied: “I’m not at liberty to say one way or the other.”
3 councilmembers refuse to enter discussion
The City Council’s ability to act was already narrowed before discussions even began.
The matter of Teramoto’s appointment was allowed on the agenda because the Council Policy Manual generally permits a previously decided matter to be revisited after six months.
But Larkin explained that is simply a procedural rule governing the timing of agenda items.
“It does not and cannot expand the Council’s substantive authority beyond what the Charter grants,” he said.
Before talks began, Fugazi announced she would recuse herself because the item involved the Office of the Mayor. She turned the meeting over to Lee and left the dais.
Councilmember Michele Padilla then announced she also would recuse herself, citing a “personal matter” and saying that after receiving guidance from Larkin, she was leaving the discussion “out of an abundance of caution.”
Councilmember Mariela Ponce also recused herself but did not publicly explain why. Lee asked whether Padilla and Ponce were required to provide more explanation for their recusals, but Larkin said they were not.
Stocktonia emailed Padilla and Ponce, asking what circumstances led to their recusals. Neither responded to requests for comment.
Their departures during the meeting left only Lee, Enríquez and Councilmembers Michael Blower and Brando Villapudua available to discuss Teramoto’s employment.
Members of the public took notice.
Julie Dunning questioned why two councilmembers had conflicts significant enough to recuse themselves. Pat Barret thanked Villapudua for staying on the dais, saying his presence allowed the public hearing to continue.
Residents debate accountability
Those at the meeting offered differing views about Teramoto and the council’s role in overseeing the mayor’s staff.
Yolanda Amen criticized Teramoto’s interactions with residents on social media, saying a taxpayer-funded public information officer should communicate with civility rather than attack people who criticize the mayor.
“This isn’t whether someone likes this man or not,” Amen said. “It is about professionalism. It’s about accountability.”
Dunning, who said she previously worked as a state public information officer, also criticized Teramoto’s online interactions and questioned why Stockton needs separate PIOs for the city and the mayor.
But when it came to questioning whether Teramoto should remain in his role, former Councilmember Ralph Lee White argued that the council was overstepping. He repeatedly told members to “read your charter” and said employees in the mayor’s office answer to the mayor, not the council.
Pandora Crowder argued that accountability should extend across all of City Hall.
“All of you need to be held accountable,” she said.
Lee seeks another option
Although Larkin emphasized the City Charter locks in Teramoto’s job, Lee wanted to know what authority remained available to the council regarding his employment.
He first asked whether councilmembers could rescind the December resolution that authorized his appointment.
Larkin said they could, but not the appointment itself. When Lee asked what that would do, Larkin said it would be a symbolic gesture but have “no legal effect.”
Lee then asked whether the position could be sent to the Charter Review Advisory Commission to consider additional “guardrails.” Larkin said the charter could be reviewed, but the referral had not been placed on the Aug. 18 agenda, and therefore couldn’t be scheduled.
Lee finally asked whether the council could use its budget authority over Teramoto’s position. Larkin again identified a limitation: The council controls the city budget, he said, but cannot defund a position the charter requires the city to have.
Larkin later told Stocktonia that changing the council’s authority over the appointment or removal of the mayor’s PIO would require a charter amendment and voter approval.
At that point, the council lost its quorum after Villapudua decided to abstain from voting on any motions regarding the matter. Without a quorum, Lee ended the discussion.
Villapudua did not respond to Stocktonia’s questions about why he initially stayed for the meeting and then refused to vote on anything.
Stocktonia reached out to Fugazi and Teramoto by email and text, and emailed follow-up questions to Padilla and Ponce. No one responded. Larkin was the only city official contacted after the meeting who provided written answers.
Teramoto’s employment, Larkin said, can only be changed by the mayor.